Deferred capabilities
An item becoming necessary for an included outcome needs an explicit change to the feature specification and its acceptance scope.
| Need | Why outside current scope | Discovery context | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADR for feature-flag management | A Platform-wide approach extends beyond introducing the MCP flag. | Naming the first flag, entitlement-remote-mcp-org, and identifying the need for a code-owned catalog. |
Prepare a separate future ADR covering flag types and names, ownership, targeting, defaults and lifecycle. Include a defined flag catalog in code, such as an enum, and how releases detect new flags and provision them in WorkOS through supported APIs. Not a prerequisite for MCP; no ADR drafting or implementation in this scope. |
| Inventory business tools and projection-backed queries | The foundation exposes only two fixed permission tools and performs no business reads or mutations. | Internal inventory and conversational-demo goals. | Separate Product scope, shared-operation architecture, domain authorization and durable provenance before business exposure. |
| Business-user evaluation of real workflows | Fixed permission tools do not provide real business tasks. The foundation already has a manual client checklist. | Usability of inventory and query work. | Plan business-user evaluation when real inventory or query functionality is introduced. |
| Browser-resident assistance through WebMCP | The near-term audience starts work from independent agent conversations; browser integration is a separate interface. | Separate browser-assistance proposal and the distinction between remote and in-page assistance. | Future proposal; pending separate Product scope. |
| Custom Platform screens for MCP activation, connection management or audit browsing | The feature proposal uses operational enablement, existing user permission administration and client/vendor flows. Whether these suffice is still consequential. | WorkOS product guide's administration controls and review of the initial audiences. | Pending Product decision; required screens need scope expansion and mockups. |
| Per-client read-only versus write delegation | Agreed initial control is the user's MCP permissions across authorized clients. | Consent and broad delegation discussion. | Deferred; no grant service or client allowlist proposed. |
| Cross-tenant/environment switching within a connection and service-account automation | Initial access is human-delegated and resource-bound. | Comparison of WorkOS workspace/environment controls with the tenant-specific proposal. | Separate authority/product decision required. |
| Raw source-data queries, calculations or report execution | The foundation performs no business or source-data query. Report execution introduces a separate data and evidence boundary. | Clarifying what the demo can promise from projection-backed queries. | Confirm initial demo boundary; broader capability pending separate specification. |
| Destructive deletion, credential operations and MCP policy changes through the agent | Sensitive operations are excluded from the foundation scope. | WorkOS product guide's sensitive-operation exclusions and destructive confirmation pattern. | Separate scope and policy review; an agent confirming its own call is not human approval. |
| Advanced bulk maintenance | The initial tools do not mutate business data, and later single-target operations do not establish safe batching. | Standalone investigation #1046, reviewed during epic retirement preparation. | Preserve the existing investigation; assess exact-target preview/confirmation, authorization, atomicity or partial success, retry, progress and cancellation before any separate proposal. |
| Server-side question answering and richer retrieval | Useful projection queries do not require hosting a model or generating answers on the server. | Standalone investigation #1046, outside the deletion set. | Compare client-composed answers with a justified server-side workflow; evaluate grounding, references, freshness, permissions, untrusted content and provider data handling. No provider or implementation selected. |
| Universal schema-defined command generation and automatic graph translation | The foundation needs no semantic-operation framework. Future business tools require a separately reviewed contract before schema-driven generation is considered. | Separate shared-operation proposal and existing future platform direction. | Future architecture work; no implementation commitment here. |